20051477 Ver 3_401 Application_20110428

i
oS- iµ7'1 0,3
WILDLANDS
April 20, 2011 E§@ROWIN
UO
Mr. Ian McMillan APR 2 8 2011
NC DENR DENR-WATER QUALITY
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit WETLANDSANDSTORMWATERBRAKH
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
and Water Quality Certification No. 3689
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Linville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McMillan:
Please find enclosed five copies of our PCN package for the subject project.
following supporting data:
• Nationwide Permit No. 27 memo,
• PCN form,
• vicinity, USGS, soil, and site maps,
• photo log, and
• 11" x 17" copy of the 60% plan set.
The goals of the project are to
• restore and enhance appropriate in-stream, terrestrial, and wetland habitat,
• improve water quality by reducing nutrient levels and sediment deposition,
• stabilize the stream banks with native vegetation,
• excavate a floodplain bench, and
• enhance existing downstream deep pool fish habitat structures.
We have included the
This same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office of the US Army Corps
of Engineers. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mat enkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Tasha McCormick
US Army Corps of Engineers

Linville Stream Restoration Project - Phase III
Existing Conditions and Design Summary
Existing Conditions and Design Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is developing construction documents for a stream restoration project
on the Linville River, as well as two unnamed tributaries to the Linville River in Linville, NC.
This memorandum summarizes our watershed assessment of the Linville River to the downstream
end of the project at NC Highway 105 along with the two tributaries, now to be referred to as the
Sign Tributary and Hospital Tributary.
1. Watershed & Land Use
The Linville River project reach is located in central Avery County within the town of Linville as
shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The headwaters of the Linville River drain the
area north of US Highway 221, as shown on the Vicinity Map and the attached USGS
Topographic Map (Figure 2). The headwaters of this system drain an area approximately 6 square
miles in size; the majority of which is located within the Pisgah National Forest. The headwaters
of the Sign Tributary are located south of the Linville River portion of the project and are almost
entirely within the Town of Linville. This tributary drains an area approximately 0.4 square mile in
size and is mostly comprised of residential land uses. The headwaters of the Hospital Tributary are
located just west of the Town of Linville and drain an area approximately 0.28 square mile in size,
located north and south of NC Highway 181. The three project reaches are located in the Catawba
River Basin, HUC 03050101.
The Linville River watershed is located in a highly forested rural setting of the Pisgah National
Forest; approximately 95% of the land in the watershed is heavily forested or mixed natural
shrubland. A small percentage of the land use (approximately 5%) is considered low intensity
commercial and residential development. The Sign Tributary watershed is located in a more
developed setting with approximately 40% of the landuse considered to be low intensity
commercial and residential development with the remaining 60% covered by forest and managed
herbaceous cover. The Hospital Tributary watershed contains approximately 50% of forested land
cover and approximately 50% of institutional and industrial land uses due the locations of the
Cannon Memorial Hospital and local recycling center.
The Town of Linville lies in the Blue Ridge Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of
predominantly clastic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The geology of the project area is
Late Proterozoic to Ordovician age sedimentary and metamorphic rock (Goldsmith, 1984).
Bedrock knick points were observed in the stream bed and along small portions of the channel
banks of the Linville River.
As shown on the attached Soils Map (Figure 3), the soils found within the Linville River portion of
the project include Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (DeB) and Reddies fine sandy loam (ReA).
Dellwood soils are moderately well-drained and rapidly permeable soils formed in dominantly
coarse-textured alluvium on floodplains in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Reddies soils
similarly moderately-well drained and form from loamy alluvium on floodplains of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. The soils found along the Sign Tributary portion of the project include Whiteoak fine
sandy loam (WhB). The Whiteoak series consists of very deep, well-drained soils typically located
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Page 1
t
on benches, fans, and toe slopes in coves of the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Soil types
located along the Hospital Tributary include both Whiteoak fine sandy loam (WkC) and Nikwasi
loam (NkA). Nikwasi soils are typically poorly-drained soils that exhibit moderately rapid
permeability, found on floodplains of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
2. Existing Stream Conditions
The Linville River is a Catawba River headwater system supporting riparian and aquatic habitat
that functions as some of the most diverse ecosystems in the region. The degraded state along
portions of the Linville River and two of its unnamed tributaries (Hospital Tributary and Sign
Tributary) threatens the integrity of the associated downstream systems. Portions of the Linville
River and its tributaries have been heavily maintained and straightened in the past and have also
experienced potentially high flows as a result of past hurricane events. Prior to these incidences,
these streams exhibited symptoms of instability such as vertical down-cutting and lateral scour that
prevent efficient transport of discharge and sediment. The failure of the already disturbed systems
to accommodate the relatively high flow events resulted in further, more severe degradation. This
level of degradation perpetuates extreme bank erosion and promotes additional bank failure,
introduces excess sediment, and ultimately reduces aquatic habitat diversity by widening and
shallowing of the active channel, threatening near-bank shade and riparian structure, and warming
of water temperatures.
The project extents are shown on the attached Site Map (Figure 4). The project includes:
• approximately 2,289 linear feet (LF) of the Linville River between Royal Mile Lane and
NC Highway 105;
• approximately 1,236 LF of an unnamed tributary (Hospital Tributary) downstream of NC
Highway 181, under Hospital Drive, to the Linville River; and
• approximately 182 LF of an unnamed tributary (Sign Tributary) located at the intersection
of Linville Avenue and NC Highway 181.
The current condition of the Linville River reach is an incised and somewhat over wide channel
with limited floodplain access. This portion of the channel has a relatively low gradient with
channel slopes of approximately 1%. This reach currently classifies as a manipulated Rosgen F
type channel with very high width-to-depth ratios of 22 to 26 and very little channel pattern.
Channel substrate is predominately cobble; however, bed form remains weak with a lack of well-
established riffle-pool sequences. The vertical stream banks exhibit heavy erosion and a lack of
suitable, stabilizing vegetation. Typical riparian vegetation includes a dominance of rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red oak (Quercus rubra), and
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The adjacent floodplain to this section of the Linville River
currently holds two open-water borrow pits remaining from the construction of NC Highway 105.
These open water areas remain heavily maintained with a lack of riparian vegetation.
The Hospital Tributary is a relatively steep, unnamed headwater tributary to the Linville River.
Portions of this channel exhibit relatively stable conditions; however, a lack of suitable riparian
vegetation along with a large amount of in-stream debris is negatively affecting in-stream habitat.
Before reaching its confluence with the Linville River, a large beaver dam complex has created a
back water wetland system at the downstream end of this tributary. Overall channel classification
can be difficult in areas with open water impacts, however this reach most nearly classifies as a
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Page 2

Rosgen B type channel. Upstream habitat includes sparse mature trees such as red oak and eastern
hemlock, while downstream areas are completely dominated by understory rhododendron growth.
The Sign Tributary currently exists as a roadside ditch, adjacent to Linville Avenue and flows into
a long pipe system before discharging into an existing on-line pond. Due to the large amount of
channel manipulation from roadway construction an accurate stream classification cannot be
assigned to this reach.
Bankfull Indicators
The bankfull stage indicator along the project reaches was typically identified in the field as a break
in slope on a flat depositional feature. This indicator is relatively consistent with other NC
mountain streams. Bankfull data for the project reaches was compared with the NC Mountain
Regional Curve. Selected riffle cross-sectional areas plot at or just below the NC Mountain
Regional Curve data within the scatter of the curve data (Figure 5). These data locations indicate
that a bankfull stage was adequately selected within acceptable limits for each of the project
reaches. Manning's equation, in conjunction with reference reach data was used to calculate an
approximate bankfull discharge using the cross-sectional area and overall channel slope for the
project reaches. These approximate bankfull discharges are also shown overlaid with the NC
regional curve in the attached Figure 5.
3. Design Parameters
The Linville River stream restoration project consists of three distinct work areas including the
Linville River, the Hospital Tributary and the Sign Tributary. The restoration project will include
adjusting the channel dimension, profile, and pattern on all three sites. The project will include
sections of Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration, stream enhancement, pond removal, stream day-
lighting, and wetland creation.
The first restoration area is on the Linville River beginning at the Oak Street Bridge and runs south
approximately 2,600 linear feet to the culvert crossing under Highway 105. This reach is a lower
gradient mountain stream channel with an average slope of approximately I%. Much of this reach
is incised and has limited access to the floodplain. Channel manipulation in the past has produced
a straightened system with little bed form and limited flood conveyance capacity. Treatments for
this reach include changes to the pattern, dimension and profile. In addition to recreating a stable
cross-section the channel will benefit from the excavation of an adjacent bankfull bench to
adequately convey larger flood flows. The constructed bankfull bench will be built along the
majority of the reach and will range in width from 15 feet to 90 feet on one or both sides of the
channel. Additional work will include removal and backfilling of borrow pit ponds located near
the existing channel, which were created during the construction of Highway 105, and the
excavation of a series of forested ephemeral wetland cells. Table 1 summarizes the design
parameters for this reach. A meandering pattern as well as in-stream boulder-cobble and log
structures will be used to establish bedform diversity with shallow riffles and deep pools. Riparian
plants native to the mountain region of NC will be planted on the banks, bench and floodplain to
stabilize the stream corridor and add terrestrial habitat. This reach will be protected with a
conservation easement.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Page 3
1?'1
The second restoration/enhancement area of the project is an un-named headwater tributary to the
Linville River, informally called the Hospital Tributary. This reach extends from the western
property line downstream to the confluence with the Linville River crossing the access road to the
hospital in a culvert approximately mid-reach. This reach includes channel enhancement, channel
restoration through a breached irrigation pond, and stream and buffer preservation. Channel
enhancement is proposed for the upper portion of the reach. Enhancement will include debris
removal, in-stream structure installation, and extensive buffer planting within the conservation
easement area. Work on the lower portion of the reach involves restoration of the channel through
a historic farm pond that has been breached. The restoration on this part of the reach will address
dimension, pattern and profile and will include removal and regrading of the historic dam to match
surrounding topography. In-stream cobble and boulder structures will be used to re-establish
bedform diversity, improve channel hydraulics, and to protect the stream banks. Table 2
summarizes the design parameters for this reach. Riparian plants native to the mountain region of
NC will be planted on the banks, bench and floodplain to stabilize the stream corridor and add
terrestrial habitat. This reach will be protected with a conservation easement. The remaining 650
If of the channel will be preserved and protected by a conservation easement, no grading or
planting is proposed for this area.
The third restoration area includes another unnamed tributary of the Linville River, informally
identified as the Sign Tributary. The stream currently is contained in a roadside ditch flowing into
a long culvert ultimately dumping into a weir controlled online pond. The proposed project will
replace and relocate the existing culvert, shortening the overall culvert length by more than 70
linear feet; restore the meandering channel including a floodplain bench; and remove and re-grade
the online pond. Restoration on this short reach is proposed although it is somewhat constrained
by challenging topography and existing infrastructure on both sides of the site. Fooodplain grading
will also incorporate grass swales to convey overland storm water flows from the adjacent
buildings and road inlets. All disturbed areas will be replanted with native vegetation and grass.
Table 3 summarizes the design parameters for this reach.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Page 4
1
a
N
o w
c o
w O
?a> e n w
r O
aV N
O O
r: O
ai P.-
r O
N O
6 N

ai
a7 A U h O N O of N O O O a'f 1? a'f 6
G O a0
U K
d t'! C ? C G V aV o O
a
3

ai
N
r
0
0
as
?
N
?
H
M
O
a!
?
O
p
ol
M
N
N
M
I
ci
?
a°p
M
?
v
?
M
$
h
?
M
N+ E ?O O a+i aV V' O N O G ui r M O fV N N ad M ao c-
L to o co
O
O
u M
?
U OD r? M
m
? O O
O p
O
41
p+D
O
V
o
h
N
N
O
M
O
M
N pp
8

N
?a
N
N
O
M
O
O
V
h
of
.C ^ E N N r V M N fV h r CI O O O l+l aV I? N N r N n r N

J
N

Nap

N

as

o

N

V

M

O

O
N

Cl
O

OM1

p

O

h

m

M

O

V

o

M

O

N

N

aD

10

O

M

O

Cp
O

+ E N V aN0 'o M N ?T a O O aj N
L"
r
a'i
O)
N
V
co

ai

O

N

L a0
N
h O O
u .-
U ?° ?ppn m
d O O ?
? o
d C
C
o
h
o
N

M

O

N

O O O p

°?

N

O

°O

N

N

N

O

M

N

oo

y

r
co

p
n

'>
E
?O
M
r
V
co
N
aV
ri
o
O O
6
v
N 6
r
CO
N Ls
N
r
M
ad
w
C
J o
d
-
>

N

O

?-

C

M

al

O

N

O

a0
r
N

N
N

O

f+1

a)

1.

O

O

op

°

O

°

O

O
C N
J E LL7 M tG M N O V O
O O
O C W fN a i M Lo O O O ° O
M

L N
O N
O O
O
d
u > 0 0 ?
A

0:

C

O
O

?

a!

O
a)

N

O

ap
7 o o n

N

N
0
8
g

O

M

pJ

a

4

O

0

0

°

O

°

O

O

O
y E to M N •- O c op N N M t[I o O O O
O

Q
41

.
N
O
0
0
aD
n
h
O
N
V O
ap
o
O
W

N
V
1?
r
O
O
o
0
O
O
O
N E a> N O l N an ? O M O O fY M aV ? ?i G O C
O
L d th o O N
d ?
m V p] O
o O
o ?

?
c
o
o
°
eo r
o
?
°o
o
ro
?
M
m
4
0
°
n
o
0
0
E o ul o c c o N o ci A o o c o 0 0
o
d
>
o

q

a

i0

O

N

M

'-

M

O

O

M

a0

a
Q
O

O

u)

co

-

M

N

N

O

O
N E O M aV N r u) fV 0 O N 1? M N ?- G O
° N M 0
J U N O_ O
t
N [t] O
O O
O ?

d
c
M
O
N
r
W
O
N
O
N
N p
O
N
?-
O
O
O
O
O
O
E O fV r r N O ?- O G r a`! 0 0 O G G G
N O O
d
."?-
E
N
d
d
d
d
w
O
O
O
D J co d. d w d d z) w w w co
w
w
d
IQ H d
d d
w d
w d
d
a
u y
C
d

O m

a

O

0

d

>

3

v

o
t
3 y

m

a

w

Y D

' 3
8
-a ?'

3
_

? E

J 3
E o 3 ; Q 3
z v v ;

.
C
O? Q
a >
c
ca
-
o >
c

d
o

.

0 O m
N w
C Y N
L ,
p
d d
L d
L
O

`y 4j
v
°- c
a N w
Y
a L
g

m
5 - co
O
'?
.
crn
m
m
a' N c d o ° d d

w
' N
y Z`
o w
Y .L-.
y D
° p j
?° pl `
c
d W
w
m V
°
.2 C
a
o O
a)
° N
L ...
m 5
c > >
O d
N O > W d O O L E ? ° a C o
a L - 3 d N 2 ZJ

>
C
y .
d
d
d
n
E
d
_?
'

?
°
d C
L -
y
T d
a d
a d
a d
a
o
u
E L_,

v L
u
m 1 >

E

E U

J
>
a
E
N
p a{
G
c
&
?L
ao
C
m
L
E
o
C
y
t
Y
V
u
N
w
T
y
o
o o
0
N
0
N
o
N
b
6
Q
u]
E
S
>
a o
b
d
C
3
3
E
E
y

o
N
o
N

ei ' N '?

` u!
d C
n1 d d
>> -p C
/p a
d C
lp O
o S
C
to Q!

r J
C d d O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 O C
0 d O
o
d o1
d
d p)
d y ?
'O J
O
N c -o a tp d 3 E E a a c d > c
y 'y c M a a a E a o. n a a a E
y
N ?p
C z
m c samlea.1 uoll3as•ssa3 llsonulg sainleaj sainleaq lood sainleaj ujaued
F alma

N
0

c N
7
O O
`
r ?_
t0
O
N
O
N
h

O

O
o O

1d

L N W
V 7
h
O
N e"
O
N N
h C
O r
O C?
O ?-
P7 fV
1?
' r
O Gf
aD
U?
d
a ri o p o a N p
r o
m
y
d N
C
O
C r
N N
V

O
O O
'
V
M
N
M
V
O
O
h
h
fM
Iq
O
N
C
d m O O N O N
O O N O n

a N M N C fN
A d

a
d
O
p
O
T
O
M
N O
O
m
O
O p
O
M
M
O
N
°
10
O
R
O
O
E O O ( M M N o p O th C7 M O N o o O O
F
N N O
T O O
m p ° ?
N

O
=

C

ci

O

O

N

p

O

N

p

O

f0 O O
O

O
O

O

O

O

a0

p

0

O

N

O

O

O

O
E o V N O O C N N N O O G o C G
O
> t0
17

N

r'

N

O!

N

O

Op

N

N

N

Q

O

M

O!

r

4

O

°

O!

O

O

O

O

O
J m E M ?p O M nj O O C O fV (7 co to O O G O O

M ?
t

U
O O
O
o O O
u ? 0 0

Rd'
C
O
O
N
O
N
O
pp
Y7 0 0
N
N
O
O
M
O
O
Of
O
O
O
E m o M N tO v p o0 0 °° N N M ° o
0
N
N
N
O
OD
O
O
?O p

lo
OD
O
O
N
V
r
0
0
p
0
O
O
O
w E O O O N M '-• r O
. t'f ; O N M {V C O O
V1 Y O O c
L d U Q h O
N
U
od U m O
o O
c r

K
e_
o
0
0 r
c
n o
o
o
°
v?
M
m
4
m
o
r
o
0
0
E O?j C O C O O N C f'7 '- G C G G - O
O
d
o
(J
%
q
O
O?
O

6

O
N

M

r
M

O

f0

O

M

O

O

V

Q

O

0

N

O

M

N

N

O

O
N E r ( O M M N O N
O
O
N
h M
f4
O
O
O
J N
N M
W
O O O
L
u m o
o 0

o

C_

M

p

N

r

0

O

Y1

0

i0

!V o

N p

°O

O

N

0

0

O

O

O

O
E to o ?m N Oa r {y o o O r c4 o 6 O O O Q
GI
m ? O O
10
L
d E N LL N y N N d ° ° o w
°
°
u c v 'G a d d w a s

d a a :? :? °? LL
co ?

d '

w m

w
Q
L N
Fy w je? w
0 ? C

m

9

¢

o
4

o°

i

s

3

v
4
Y
d
a

3

W

Y

€
r
N W
Sc

v
R

3
`s

g
Ye

°
j,

3

3

s
Y
CL ° 3 m v 8 ; a i
z v v ?
u) U)
W
O _
C
a m 3c
-
o
c
o

?
O
°' ?
2 m
a m
1O -
m
a
O c c o a S d °
. A
s
u

a

d

c

a - w w m
C L N
'v
d
m c
o
v
'; o
?

O
O
y
Y2 o
c o m c
d c
d
y
d

'
m
w

O
a
m g c

o
d
Q
°-
m
°- °
o
°
m c
a
°
i °
o
• `
t
v a
c w
c d

c m

c
m
m
d d
' C a -
y
> c D
E
o
p a
r o
3 .
N
o m
° o o ? ?i
w ?
3
> d
>
aoi
ao Z Z
v
G -
E a s o N O V L E U N N D n
O a
O a
O n
O o u
O E
7 y O O- m
d d O O

m N
C
2+
Y
C
L
•?
N
L.
Y
V
d
y
C
O
N

d
N

d
H
N .
N
E

R

v

3

3

U

l0

3

C

3

3
`
E

o
E

m N

> m

N
N
d
a i> ° o o c
m n
Q c
W o
O S
C
fp m
r
c
'
t
E O
O o
O 0
O o
O o
O 0
O 0
0 o c
0 lp o
o
d o
d
C m
C
? ? d

v
o
w
O d
3
E
E
a
v
a
c d
>
C
3
H c
a
a
a
a
a
m
n
as
a
E
-
- N y ? Z
F J sajnleaj uO!l?ag-ssOA3 isonuig saa
a sainleoJ food sainleaj uMled
'
C
Ol

Q
G) M O ?. r N <O O N O O n O O u>
C O

C
L w

C? Yf

Lh

O r

N e+

O G

O r

N N

N 4

O pr

O M

O

M N

n co
aN•-
c?

ao
U M O O O 7 N n
d
a
a

m to
c o
c
a s
o
O O
co
a-
V
M
N
co
It
o
b
?
o
?
V
C V
m
q
O
N
N O N M N M

N t O O N O h ap

Q •y tll N r °
O
N
a m

m
v:
o
N
07
M
O)
cl
w
O
N O
O
O O
o
M
p
M
N
N
°
N
?.,
l0
V
t0
p
O
E O V' O N p. O N O O h N M M O N V M co V' M
O O O O
a U o °'o
F o 0
c
W
C_
'
er
if1
N
n
N
to
O
N
N
O
O
N o 0
O
N
v)
10
<O
N
°
tp
0
O
O
O
N E ° V M a- 7 M O ° O V' e"i N N M O N N ° a0 N N
O °

a
aMD
p
G
N
w
m
o
p n
p
O w
p
N
O
N
?O
M
h
N
O
OD
°
N
O
M
t E M 61 a M M N N O O N O O N u)
n
Oj
M
O
O
N
N
n 'r
It
N
c7
O O M O O
d
U
R S
O S
O N
N
C

E

M
T

M
n

!O
N

V

M

O

r O

N
O

O

O

O

N

O

°

M

°

M

N

O

O

O
O M f7 O O O a N w aJ M N A h N
O

N
O
°
ao
n
a
O
N
V O
O
O
O
0
N
7
h
r
°
O
°
O
O
O
O
N E m W O N N n O M O O N M N
O
O
O

N y O O

t a) M
W
t0
O
N
U?
`a
V m O O
ar
?
c
°
o
°
ao o o h
ho
0 o
0
0
0
?n ;
M
O1
°
m
°
n
o
0
0
E c:; O O O O N C vi O ^ C O O C
O
d
>

O
U

a

W

O

7

M

r

t0

O

M

a0 aD

co O

D

O

l0

aD

°

M

N

N

N
E
n
m
O
M
C7
N
.-
O
N
O
O
04
r I
M
N
0O0 O
O O
O
O N M O O
J M W O
t
U co O O
a

a.
_
C

N

O

?

n

ao

?

N

O

?

N ° ° ?

N O
O
O

O

ry

,7

O

O

O

O

O

O
E (O O M N '- n N O O O h N O O O O O O
<Y O O
H
L

t?_? E u, lL N N
O O O
O
Ip y U a w w w d d N ry w7 ?1 N u) w w
L
a w

u
_
=
c

o

Q
o

a
c7

a

n
>

x
3

x
v

s
v°
a
a
a

u

W
-

Y

t

a
8

n

3

d

3

;
a

a
3

a
3

z
3 E
v CO
3
c
?
8
?
$
3
3
Q
o
3
o y
H Q
y
t U) CO
?
C a w -
3
a a y
L4)
w i+
u
m N
`m C
co O C

a

a
Q N Ol y a a
c a 3 _ a co O
a
C U
a0i 7
°
m y

c
m

4D U
S
a a)
o L
c
° O
e N
m
o
i+
a _ w -
'
a o o
m a

a

m

o

D a

a

m o

o c

_ O

v `6

r ? D
F ` a
a d
a y
m o
> c O
° 'r
• a m 0 a m m y rn S
a m y a m Z Z
C
? o c a 3 °- w e E 0 H 0 0 a) a S
E w i s
a 3 d u Q

O)

(A

{
I)

E

O

C

O)

3

Y

?

N
7E

i6

L

7
E

a

C

3

L

a)

2
a

U
c

y

T

a)

O

O

N

O

N

O

N

O

N a

•`3

p_

W

3
E

0

a

3

a
3

O-
lo
i

N -

`
r
O

a)

0

N

v

N

v

O

O

a

N
C

w

c

N a
7
y
U d
C

)

N _
_
_
_ c
Y m

3

C

C

C m u

N

M
N

N
N
a a1
>> a a a) C
a a
a) C
a O
0
C
cp a
L J
C
S p
O
S O
O X
a O

O

S
O

O C

S O N

M
a)

cc
m

m
=

a

v

n

a m

3

E

E

a

o

w

0

>

0

L

a

a

a

a

E

a

a

a a

as O

a N

n

E

E

E O

z
M e sain;eaj uo!;aag-ssoJ3 !sonulg sain;ead sain;ead
!ood
sain;ea? u?aued
I- aBlRI

19 4 ' AG
- ? c• "ti ? ?$S '' ; .•,..,?' '?" - eat -
' E1 R{Ki
Linville River
6.0 square miles
.a+ jo, 06,010103020010 40
* .• °" ,
w F -
`'? ?`"'' 0101-03010010
{.s _? Cs?l1'Nftl
,1 ? "?Ikpe of r•% `' "t..Aes?,f+
%
it f Ill
osgtoloadi??alo ? -
'u+v,I?tla'
?7 ?r i
sfts -.
Hospital Tributary
` _1 0.28 square mile
r
r

r
1
I
1
1
I
i

I
1 4 j[MJ i?x???r ..
$wrf:
L'Ni T r . 1•? ,Y
1
1
t
i
1
1
i

I
f r
0305010'(070030, r s'
t? •i? ,iv-?'
i.
'Ir ?r
.!'-
Proposed Stream Alignment Streams
/ - Project Watersheds Linville River Subbasin
`r Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Wl DS I 1 O.I 5 I 1 i5 Miles
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Linville Restoration Project
Phase III
Avery County, NC

!'.`:41t/1!1'>trOV(;lG.QrA ?1 r ,?// ' l f~^ \ r /Y? _ _ ?e?,r f 1\ !!? , ,7 ?J j //?? ?1! ? ,(`?
C C ? ; „ VV
;? f ,(/ -f? •? , ti??? MC .ta.t 1rh °i !? / %, ? ? % '•'Fi r r { ? /? ?. r.J. ..l ?,??r
zl.
/rtBYrrD iartQlEwooa Cefn ,S r l f -
b ///
441 Linville River
?r \' w
-X %O
(1 •. ,-
Chi
(rj / tT r., - 1 •_ s?rc! - y i ?-i-- i'. t _ a 3f. : i'! , ..
Sign Trlbutary? ?J;r ?? to ?lI tip"
Ontezuw*
1ewG (r. Ger - r ?Nlt1 ?/J /// -- c y4 • C'• 1?, {a //i e
SLl?gM MohtQrk6ir?a Gap t' _ O ,? • `bJ .J _ U./
r-- -M Hospital Tributary f' - 1? x t + q t ' , / _-
P b Q y?4Yatpr ,I r1/ -
3? \?? - - _ / I rL ?P. ,c't2-r,
'; ?/ `\ X95+ 1 I % jai
Q t?
fi ?? : '? • Y _ - %;. ?,. Flat."
`amp Linn-Ela,.?n,?r FJM G
* r r ?? Camp
Yonabnoka?
,-T Project Area Figure 2. USGS Map
Streams Linville Restoration Project
\ \ Phase III
WILDLANDS 0 1,000 2,00OFeet
I I I { I Avery County, NC
Linville RIVer and Sign tributary
ReA PnD -----
?,„ i 0 250 500 Feet
SpE ReA DeB Apt ,, I I t j
r,
CrE a
r.
UdC W
}., az CrE
WkC
ReA Proposed Project Area
Streams
CuA
W Jurisdictional Wetland
Soil Types
a CrE - Cross nore-Jeffre complex, 30 to 50% slopes
„ I
$ %4, CuA - Cullowhee loam, 0 to 3% slopes
DeB - Dellwood cobbly sandy loam, 1 to 5% slopes
WhB ; p ra,?ahd NkA- Nikwasi loam, 0 to 3% slopes
ReA - Reddies fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes
w , UdC - Udorthents-Urban land complex, 2 to 15% slopes
+ i `• ; WhB - Whiteoak fine sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes
14
x WkC - Whiteoak fine sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
pB CrE .. W - Water
ReA
SrC
P
CrE
`,Pnt PnD
$ Hospital Tributary
a r? CrE WkC 0 250 500 Fewet
-- I t I I I
UdC
pop CrE
aKQ :'..gY :.
Ua
*-,f WhB WkC.;_
Q NkA ?RE W N kA
W
CrE /
`a RoA
PnD
PnD 'i
x
x - WtD
'2010 Aerial Photography Iftx- CrE SsB
Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map
i Linville Restoration Project
1 Phase III
Wl LDLANDS Avery County, NC
t invill(? HIVu[ urr :?iyr 7 nbutary-
m, - Jursidictional Waters of the
s r? , 0 250 500 Feet U.S. were determined and
@q,' I i t 1 classified by Wildlands
Pond A; Engineering, Inc. on
r
2.3 Acres F February 12, 2009.
Jurisdictional features have
not been verified by the
USACE.
1J1
t
?t
i
A e
Alp
4 Pond B L? A r Linville River '
x 0.9 Acres
r: 2,289 LF - Perennial `
'er Wetland BB rr
0.18 Acre * + '
_• A UTi - Perennial
I 4• -
1
UT2 - Perennial
*) 4'yb.C
FAY
J4k
?,N_ N11
Pond C
0.29 Acre Sign Tributary (Portion Piped),
182 LF - Perennial n
??'.. Hospital Tributary
0 250 500 Feet
yV?x 1;
Hospital Tributary f kT
1,235 LF - Perennial ?,.
k ? T f
by .t [? ? :-?? ?l •k .
j Wetland AA (Beaver Dam)
1.28 Acres
'2010 Aerial Photography-,
?-? - Project Area Figure 4. Site Map
i Streams Linville Restoration Project
t Pond Phase III
WILDLANDS Jurisdictional Wetland
Avery County, NC
North Carolina Mountain Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
1000
iv
d
A
7
Q
d
a`
V
.q? 100
X
C
CO
North Carolina Mountain Regional Curve: Discharge
l
WI LDL?ANDS
Figure 5. Regional Curve Data
Linville Restoration Project
Phase III
Avery County, NC
10
01 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (Sq.Mi.)
0 Mountain Data ? Linville X1 Riffle Linville X5 Riffle a Hospital Tnbutary Sign Tnbutary -Power (Mountain Data)
o?oryW?aT F9p?
olqiii? '.'?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: Nos. 14 & 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Linville Restoration Project - Phase I I I
2b. County: Avery
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Linville
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Linville Resorts, Inc
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Bk. 400, pg. 85
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: PO Box 99
3e. City, state, zip: Linville, NC 28646-0000
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify:
4b. Name: Earl Sheppard, Chairman
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Pilot View Resource Conservation and Development
4d. Street address: 2714 Henning Drive
4e. City, state, zip: Winston-Salem, NC 27106
4f. Telephone no.: 336-750-0522
4g. Fax no.: 336-750-0177
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address: 1430 South Mint Sreet, Suite 104
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.: 704-332-7754
5f. Fax no.: 704-332-3306
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Project includes: 185505281984, 184500839393,
184500635341
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.073792° Longitude: 81.869899°
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: Approximately 450 total acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Linville River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class B; Tr
2c. River basin: Catawba 03050101
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project is located in rural setting in and around the Town of Linville, NC. Land uses adjacent to the project areas are
largely forested with small areas of maintained vegetation, light residential and commercial development. The project
stream channels are largely degraded systems exhibiting lack of channel pattern, floodplain access, bank erosion, and
very little bedform; with poor in-stream and degraded riparian habitat.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Jurisdictional wetlands total 1.46 acres; jurisdictional open water areas (impoundments & borrow pits) total 3.96 acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 4,840 linear feet of perennial stream channel within the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim portions of the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and in-
stream structure within portions of the Linville River and two unnamed tributaries (Hospital Tributary and Sign Tributary)
through enhancement and restoration activities.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of floodplain bench, excavation of riffle and pool
bedform features, and installation of in-stream boulder structures. Additionally, on-site borrow pits and stream
impoundments will be drained and natural riparian wetland systems will be created. A trackhoe and typical excavation
equipment will be used for the construction of this project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Plans `
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T

W1 ? P ® T
Enhancement Floodplain,
emergent/forested ® Yes

? No ® Corps

®DWQ
0.18
(Wetland BB)
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.18
2h. Comments: In addition to the wetland complex being created in the floodplain of the Linville River, Wetland BB will be
enhanced through structures to improve hydrology as well as plantings with native vegetation.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - PER or
-
404, 1
(Corps
0
stream

r
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ
-
non-
404
, (linea
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ® T Restoration Linville River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 20' 2,654
S2 ? P ®T Restoration Sign Tributary ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 4-6' 182
S3 ? P ®T Restoration Hospital Tributary ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 6-8' 400
S4 ? P ® T Enhancement Hospital Tributary ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 6-8' 263
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 3,499
3i. Comments: All impacts associated with restoration and enhancement activities are considered temporary impacts. The
Sign Tributary is currently 182LF and flows through approximately 160LF of pipe before daylighting into an existing pond. With
the restoration of this reach, 376LF of channel will be created in addition to an extended road culvert, resulting in a net gain of
approximately 194LF of perennial channel (See attached construction plans).
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ®P ? T Pond A Drain and partial fill Historic borrow pit 2.3
02 ® P ? T Pond B Drain and partial fill Historic borrow pit 0.9
03 ® P ? T Pond C Drain and partial fill Historic borrow pit 0.29
4f. Total open water impacts 3.49
4g. Comments: Ponds A and B are two historic borrow pits from the construction of NC Highway 105. These open water areas
will be drained as part of a 2.6-acre wetland creation complex within this area of the floodplain to Linville River. Pond C will be
drained to allow for the restoration alignment of the Sign Tributary.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed,
5a. 5b.
Pond ID I Proposed use or purpose
number of pond
then complete the chart below.
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Flooded I Filled I Excavated I Flooded I Filled I Excavated
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
6b. 6c. 6d.
Buffer impact
number - Reason
Permanent (P) or for
Temporary (T) impact
B1 ?P?T
B2 ?P?T
B3 ?P?T
6i. Comments:
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
? Catawba ? Randleman
6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer
Stream name mitigation
required?
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
(square feet) (square feet)
Page 6 of 12
5d. 5e.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features
in the streams and establishing flood storage. Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to
stabilize the newly graded banks throughout the project corridor. Additionally, high quality wetland habitat will be created
in the areas of the existing, heavily maintained borrow pits and further enhanced with native wetland vegetation.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, ? hich mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank
? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetland areas, no increase in impervious cover will result from
the construction of this project.
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
d
i
i ? Yes ® No
a
d
t
onal development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream restoration project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact
downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ? No
habitat? - See below.
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts? - See below.
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Raleigh ® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat? Wildlands utilized the NC Natural Heritage Program's element occurrence GIS data layer to determine that no federally-listed species
element occurrences were located within at least one mile of the proposed project reaches. A request is being submitted, along with this
enclosed permit application to the USFWS Asheville office for any additional information on the presence of endangered or protected species or
critical habitat that may be effected by the proposed project.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? T[] Yes ? No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
A request for records search was submitted to the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). In a response letter, dated March 30
2011
,
(enclosed). The NCWRC stated that "the Linville River supports wild Brown trout, so in channel work and land disturbance within the 25-foot
trout buffer zone should be avoided during the Brown trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect egg and fry stages of trout
from direct impacts and sedimentation during construction. In addition, Grandfather Mountain crayfish, Cambarus eeseeohensis (NCSR)
habitats are known in the area. This species is endemic to Burk and Avery Counties above Linville Falls."
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ® Yes ? No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)? -See below.
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A request for records search was submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office on March 21, 2011. In a response letter
dated April 7, 2011 (enclosed), SHPO expressed that due to the "topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the
presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites." Wildlands is currently working with New South Associates, Inc. to provide a
comprehensive archaeological survey of the Linville River portion of the project. A full surrey and report of the findings will be presented to
SHPO, prior to any construction activities.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? _T11-yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The project includes design elements that are meant to improve the capacity of
the channel/floodplain to pass larger storms. The proposed design incorporates significant bench excavation that extends the floodplain width
and lowers the floodplain elevation. The proposed conditions design was incorporated into the existing FEMA floodplain model for that reach
,
which does not indicate a rise in the base flood elevation. The model results will be reviewed and approved by the local floodplain administrator
prior to construction.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 1855; Map Number 3710185500J
,
effective date December 2, 2008

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Date
is provided.)
Page 11 of 12
-,
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: April 20, 2011
COUNTY Avery County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT -450 Acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Linville Restoration Project- Phase III
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Pilot View Resource Conservation and Development
POC: Earl Sheppard; 336-750-0522
2714 Henning Drive
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
POC: Matt Jenkins, PWS; 704-332-7754
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: stream restoration/ enhancement )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X ) Project Vicinity Map
(X ) USGS 7.5-Minute, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X ) Project Site Map
(X) NRCS Avery County Soil Survey
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms
(X) Wetland Data Forms
(X) Representative Photographs
Signat re of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Vercinn 4-11
Date: ProjectfSite: ,?'; -1(e
P?otSL
Latitude: 36 0?8M6 •
Evaluator: 14L County: Avery Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent `7 ?L
Stream Determination ( cir
Other l,' Av:!r< R;4
if >_ 19 or perennial ifs 30* Ephemeral Intermittent erenni e.g. Quad Name:
A_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 4 l )
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes 3
ai uuaai wl(:1?CS dfe nVI faced; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10 -51
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1 5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? 0 0.5
No = 0 1 1.5
Yes 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1
5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 .
1.5
24. Amphibians 0 @L5,) 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1
5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; O BI = 1.5 Other = 0 .
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 7/) E04T Project/Slte: L;,1V+Jfe rndRlt? Latitude: 36.07T?17AI
Evaluator: M(,.,7-S_ County: Avery Longitude: 71.0049306vo Id
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3?- Stream Determination (cir
E
hemeral I
t
itt
l Other XPI - CIV +- 07'2
d N

if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30" p
n
erm
er erenn
a e.g. Qua
ame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 lJ 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 (17) 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 C l) 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No - 0 Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10 1
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes =C3)
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = X )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:
NC DWn Rtl' -nm M.-ntifinabinn Vnrm Vn..?.n.. A 11
Date: Project/Site: I,;Avik Pb Latitude: 36,07971?
Evaluator: County: A?C Longitude:
8t g6q
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cir

l I
t
E
h
i

SGP3- L;?v:+lt ,?.
Other
if z 19 or perennial if 230' n
erm
p
emera
ttent erennia e.g. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ?S l
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2

3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes
........,..... ........... .......... ?a.? , ??? u?awaa??ns m ?nanua?
B. Hvdminnv Mihtntai . ?? r- 1
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? 0 0.5
No = 0 1 1.5
Yes 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed 0.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 1 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 Z$ ?Cr ProjectlSite:;„v: IfePk
?
Latitude:
Evaluator: 1114-Is- County: Aver Longitude:91-s-f4I q3. G/
Total: Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (cVA a__ nn0) Other Wq - Lowt A4r;+t ?

if 2 Igor perennial if a 30' Ephemeral Intermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: ?? r 10
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /G ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 17
11. Second or greater order channel No - Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = //._S )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 CV - 1 ? 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 7_S- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
---- ----- - ---
Notes:
Sketch:
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4-11
Date: 9 Z l7q ProJect/Site: ?;„?? I? NOV _' Latitude: 3G©GSStf , N
Evaluator: RL County: A?el Longitude: gt-gyvc 'G?
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent s Gs S Stream Determination (cl
E
h
l Other SOPS-- uM No":4.1

if z 19 or perennial if z 30* p
emera
Intermittent Perennia e.g. Quad Name:
T ; fs
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = f/3 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 75
11. Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes = 3
amnciai ditcnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolopv (Subtotal = /,. r 1
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes 3
v. oiuiuuv (Subioiai = /..> 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3

22. Fish
0
0.5
1 .
1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: q pq ProjectfSite: Latitude:3b.d70133® N
Evaluator: ML County: A?e1` Longitude: A970;8'r
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3? .S Stream Determination (cir
E
he
l I
t
itt Other SGQG - $• .?`rr: ?

if _ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" p
mera
n
erm
ent erennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a- Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
®
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes = 3
anincial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = `1`•S"
12. Presence of Baseflow, 0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1.5
FlT Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes 3
L. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks CO) 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians k 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae E 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: c 1;oh +4; *b ; S d v.-her for
??v+
o .. o? PS-Ai
Sketch:
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Linville River (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00pm
5. Name of Stream: Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 6.0 square miles 8. Stream Order: Third
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2,000 if 10. County: Avery
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Linville, NC travel north on US
Highway 105. Site is immediately on the right at the first gravel driveway.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.078096°N, 81.868548°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stream Restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
X Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:-
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Q NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 5 % Residential 5 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
90 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 35-40' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 6-8'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 67 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation for s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
,,;CP>I - Linville Rivar (Paranniall
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max oints 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
} 5 Groundwater discharge

no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
N
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2 2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
964
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
I- 13 Presence of major bank failures

04
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
14 Root depth and density on banks

no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 4

17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 5
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
PO 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
>r no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
V 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
04
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
00 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 67
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - UT1 & UT2 to Linville River (Perennial)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:30pm
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributaries to Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 40 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Avery
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Linville. NC travel north on US
Highway 105. Site is immediately on the right at the first gravel driveway.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.074427°N 81.868308°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A (outside of project area)
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv. 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (1-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:_
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
80 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 6-8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there arc obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. ]'he total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 74 Com
Evaluator's Signature ? Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation fort intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 - UTI & UT2 to Linville River (Perennial)
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal , Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints 0-6 0-4 0-5 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
a 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 I
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4

0-4
F*
13
Presence of major bank failures

*4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 5

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
E no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 4

17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 5
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
i no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 74
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 - Linville River (Perennial)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:45pm
5. Name of Stream: Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 6.0 square miles 8. Stream Order: Third
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2,000 if 10. County: Avery
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Linville, NC travel north on US
Highway 105. Site is immediately on the rieht at the first gravel drivewav.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.078096°N, 81.868548°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stream Restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv. 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
X -Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:-
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Q NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 5 % Residential 5 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
90 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 35-40' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 6-8'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 65 Com
Evaluator's Signature Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation for s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 - Linville River (Perenniall
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
a 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands
etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
6 ,
Presence of adjacent floodplain

y,
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
?i Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F* 13 Presence of major bank failures

?
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 4

17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 5
little or no habitat = 0; frequent
varied habitats = max
oints)
,
p
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
(J 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
04
0

22 Presence of fish

0-4

0-4

0-4

2
00 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 65
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Ila?
USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP4 - Hospital Tributary (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:00am
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed Tributary to Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 0.28 square miles 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 500 if 10. County: Avery
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Linville, NC travel west on Mitchell
Avenue approximately 1 mile and turn left onto Hospital Drive. Channel is located approximately %4 mile under roadwav.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.065002°N, 81.886193°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stream Restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3.7 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
80 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 10-15' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation for intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP4 - Hospital Tributary (Perennial)
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
Entrenchment / floodplam access
p" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max pints 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
10 . Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

?
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2

00
F*
13
Presence of major bank failures

04
severe erosion = 0; no erosion
stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
,
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 4

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max pints

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP5 - Hospital Tributary (Perennial)
t ,•'' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:45am
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed Tributary to Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 0.28 square miles 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 500 if 10. County: Avery
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks):- From downtown Linville, NC travel west on Mitchell
Avenue approximately 1 mile and turn left onto Hospital Drive. Channel is located approximately ''/a mile under roadway.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.06554°N, 81.890056°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stream Restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters lEssential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3.2 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
80 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 10-12' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-10'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Com
Evaluator's Signature Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation for intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP5 - Hospital Trihntnrv (Perenninll
#
T CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
..a 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
`x Entrenchment / floodplain access
p (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F* 13 Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints 0-5 0-5 0-5 3

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max oints 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
< 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
?-4 little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
>4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ #_
SCP6 - Sign Tributary (Perennial)
-t STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 9/25/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30am
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed Tributary to Linville River 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050101
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 0.4 square miles 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Avery

11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): Channel located in downtown Linville, NC just south
of the intersection of US Highway 105 and Mitchell Avenue.

12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.070233°N, 81.870383°W

13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stream Restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (]-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 70 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 6-8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 43 Comments: A large portion of the channel is piped and crosses under US
Hwy 105 before daylighting into an existinrfp9gd (Pond Q.
Evaluator's Signature ` Date 3/21/2011
This channel evaluation form ' intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP6 - Si n Tributary Perennial
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max oinis
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
0*°
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
s?
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 . Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
> (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
5
0
4
0
5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) - - - 5
16 Presence of riffle-poot/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripple- or nook = 0' well-develo ed = max points)
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 1
x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
_
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 25, 2011
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Linville Restoration Phase III, Linville, NC -Linville River,
Pond A, Pond B, and Wetland BB
Statc:NC County/parish/borough: Avery City: Linville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.078096° N, Long. 81.868548° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Linville River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 21, 2011
® Field Determination. Date(s): September 25, 2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S. within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 2,289 linear feet: 20 width (ft) and/or 1.05 acres.
Wetlands: 3.38 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.L; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that amlv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TN Ws: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The Linville River is a relatively large perennial channel and exhibited strong base flow conditions,
ordinary high water marks, average channel widths of 15-20 feet, strong persistent groundwater flow, moderate access to a
large floodplain, and a moderate presence of fish, crayfish, and benthic macro invertebrates. NCDWQ stream classification
scores for this channel ranged from 46 to 48 out of a possible 62 points, indicating perennial status.
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 11I.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 2,289 linear feetl5-20 width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: 3.2acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: Ponds A and B are maintained historic borrow pits from the US Highway 105 road
construction. These ponds are connected to the Linville River via a surface water connection through Wetland BB.
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland BB receives flow from two upstream open water areas (Ponds A & B); formerly
borrow pits. This wetland exhibited hydric soil indicators, hydrophytic vegetation, and strong hydrologic
indicators including inundation, saturated soils, sediment deposits, and oxidized root channels. Wetland BB is
directly connected to Linville River via a surface water connection.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.18acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATES WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 25, 2011
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Linville Restoration Phase lit, Linville, NC - UTl and UT2 to
Linville River
State:NC County/parish/borough: Avery City: Linville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.078096° N, Long. 81.868548° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Linville River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 21, 2011
® Field Determination. Date(s): September 25, 2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 200 linear feet: 3-5 width (ft) and/or 0.01 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List tloodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The unnamed tributaries to the Linville River, UTI and UT2, are perennial reaches that exhibited a well-
defined bed and bank, moderate to strong base flow conditions, ordinary high water widths of 6-8 feet, strong sinuosity and
channel pattern, and a weak presence of crayfish, amphibians, and benthic macro invertebrates. NCDWQ stream classification
scores for this channel totalled 34 out of a possible 62 points, indicating perennial status.
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 200 linear feet3-5 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN W are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA FIQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 25, 2011
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Linville Restoration Phase III, Linville, NC - Sign Tributary and
Pond C
State:NC County/parish/borough: Avery City: Linville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.070233° N, Long. 81.870383° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Linville River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 21, 2011
® Field Determination. Date(s): September 25, 2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 130 linear feet: 5-6 width (ft) and/or 0.02 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
" Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWMe (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of C WA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TN W?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The Sign Tributary is a moderately-sized perennial channel and exhibited strong base flow conditions,
average channel widths of 5-6 feet, strong persistent groundwater flow, strong substrate sorting, and a weak presence of
benthic macro invertebrates. A large portion of this channel is piped under US Highway 105 before daylighting into a
jurisdictional open water area (Pond Q. NCDWQ stream classification scores for this channel totalled 32.5 out of a possible
62 points, indicating perennial status.
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 130 linear feet5-6 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
® Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA FIQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: - acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
?
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 25, 2011
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Linville Restoration Phase III, Linville, NC - Hospital Tributary
and Wetland AA.
State:NC County/parish/borough: Avery City: Linville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.065002° N, Long. 81.886193° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Linville River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 21, 2011
® Field Determination. Date(s): September 25, 2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S. within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1,236 linear feet: 3-4 width (ft) and/or 0.1 acres.
Wetlands: 1.3 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TN W.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TN W5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWMe (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
if factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
`A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YM) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section II1.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The Hospital Tributary is a moderately-sized perennial channel and exhibited strong base flow
conditions, steep channel slopes, average channel widths of 3-4 feet, strong persistent groundwater flow, and a weak presence
of amphibians and benthic macroinvertebrates. The lower portion of the channel has been heavily impacted by beavers and
has resulted in heavy inundation and the back up of water creating Wetland AA. NCDWQ stream classification scores for this
channel ranged from 35 to 36.5 out of a possible 62 points, indicating perennial status.
? Tributaries of TN W where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 1,236 linear feet3-4 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland AA was created as the result of a large amount of beaver activity on the
Hospital Tributary and the partial impoundment of stream flows. This wetland currently exhibits hydric soil
indicators, stressed vegetation, heavy inundation, and saturated soil. Wetland AA is directly connected to
Hospital Tributary and the Linville River via surface water connections.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 1.3acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED ]INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLV):10
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required forjurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdietion Following Rapanos.
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Linville Phase III City/County: Avery Sampling Date: 2/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Linville Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.065002 Long: W 81.886193 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nikwasi loam (NkA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area in the floodplain of the Linville River
The site has been significantly disturbed and flooded from beaver activity. Dams have been
constructed up to 4-5' feet tall resulting in deep inundation and death of upland vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
' Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (65) ' Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12-48"
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if ava ilable:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Samolina Point: DP1

30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Species? Status

1 Tsuga canadensis
20 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species
2
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2 Quercus rubra 5 Yes FACU

3 Total Number of Dominant
. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
g Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
25 =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Rhododendron maximum 30 Yes FAC FAC species x 3 =
2. FACU species x 4 =
3. UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-

9. '
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
10. - 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
30 - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Cyperus strigosus 5 Yes FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.

3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

4 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8.

9 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.

11 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
5 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a s eparate sheet.)
A large number of tree species have died due to excess inundation from beaver activity.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Co-7 Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR 4/1 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C PL silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
- Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvw
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Dark Surface (S7) - 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
' Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (176) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
- Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Linville Phase III City/County: Avery Sampling Date: 2/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Linville Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.065002 Long: W 81.886193 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nikwasi loam (NkA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No " Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No " within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (66)
- Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) - Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - Crayfish Burrows (C8)
- Drift Deposits (133) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (134) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
- Iron Deposits (65) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
- Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP2

30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Species? Status

1 Tsuga canadensis
10 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2 Pinus palustris 2 Yes FACU
g Quercus rubra 2 Yes FACU Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B)
.
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
14 =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species x 2 -
1 Rhododendron maximum 90 Yes FAC FAC species x 3 =
2. FACU species x 4 =
3. UPL species x 5 -
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-
9.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
10.
3 - Prevalence Index is :-3.0'
-
90 - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'
) = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
-
2.

3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4
. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
g Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
0 = Total Cover woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.

5 Hydrophytic
. Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a s eparate sheet.)
Site is dominated by sub-canopy/ shrub layer of rhododendron .
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 5YR 5/8 100 silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
Stratified Layers (A5) - Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (At 2) - Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Linville Phase III City/County: Avery Sampling Date: 2/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering NC DP3
State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Linville Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.073792 Long: W 81.869899 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (DeB) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes V No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I/ No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area in the floodplain of the Linville River
This wetland is located immediately downstream of and receives flow from two open water areas
(historic borrow pits).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) ' True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ' Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2-6
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca ilia fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP3

30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.

3 Total Number of Dominant
. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
0 =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 =
1. FAC species x 3 =
2. FACU species x 4 =
3. UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

8. ' 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-

9. '
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
3 - Prevalence Index is 53
0'
10.
.
-
- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5
) = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Typha latifolia 80 Yes OBL - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Cyperus strigosus 10 No FACW
3 Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4 Microstegium vimineum 5 No FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.

5 Hydrophytic
. Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyne Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR 4/1 95 5YR 4/6 5 C PL sandy silt loam
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
n
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Linville Phase III City/County: Avery Sampling Date: 2/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Linville Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.073792 Long: W 81.869899 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Reddies fine sandy loam (ReA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (136)
- Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (B14) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
- Water Marks (131) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
- Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) - Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
- Iron Deposits (135) - Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Water-Stained Leaves (139) - Microtopographic Relief (D4)
- Aquatic Fauna (B13) - FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monito ring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP4

30' Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Tsuga canadensis 10 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2 Pinus palustris 5 Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
15 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Rubus argutus 30 Yes FACU FAC species x 3 =
2. FACU species x 4 =
3. UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-
9.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
3 - Prevalence Index is :53
0'
10.
.
-
30 - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5,
) = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Lolium arundinaceum 95 Yes FAC - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.

3 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
.
4 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
95 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is predominately well-manicured lawn with adjacent thickets of shrub and tree species.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR 4/4 100 silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) - Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) - Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) - Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, - Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) - Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

Photo 3-View of existing borrow pit (Pond B), facing north. Photo 4-View of surface water connection between Pond B
and Wetland BB, facia south.
44
e'`'',? ?"• ?"'
"
?a
°:.>f Y'P r ?. <w ?# It yt ti iC t ^'t ,; ;''f'
Q
r 54`
• \ 1 .-- a a2,7 t',?_t _
a ,
??. ? { t`.? ?s^?{? ,? '`j p ? i> •+.,?`, rte; ? j M''` _ .",? 5 ya,5???` / ?
A ?? ?,, . .?," ? ?;? k :. . ?? ,.tom l? ?
' twtEe,_?r
i? ?:. '•'+ _`.i! .fir ?? i? ? p t ?}; ie ;i: • S?
Photo clam, located up,trcam of ?i ctialw .? A. Photo 6-View of in-stream debris and lack of riparian buffer
along upper Hospital Tributary.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 2
Linville Restoration Project - Phase III
•? dwn vim'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History
l.inda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
April 7, 2011
Matt Jenkins
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Stream and Wetland Restoration of Linville River and Unnamed Tributaries, Avery County,
ER 11-0453
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2011, concerning the above project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The archaeologists listed, or
any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The Sign Tributary project area is located outside of, but adjacent to, the Linville Historic District, which is
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposed wetland and stream restoration will
have no adverse effect on the historic district. The Linville River and Hospital Tributary project areas will have
no effect on the historic district.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 Gast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27,601 Mailing Address: 4017 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4017 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
March 30, 2011
Mr. Matt L Jenkins, PWS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint St. Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
RE: Request for Information and Comments, Linville Restoration Project - Phase III, Avery County
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
This correspondence is in response to your communication of March 21, 2011. Biologists with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area. The NCWRC is authorized
to comment and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project on fish and wildlife pursuant to
Clean Water Act of 1977, North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, US National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat 884), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) as applicable.
The activities proposed for this site are to provide stream and wetland restoration and enhancements. Based on our
in office review, the Linville River supports wild Brown trout so in channel work and land disturbance within the
25-foot trout buffer zone should be avoided during the Brown trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15
to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from direct impacts and sedimentation during construction. In addition,
Grandfather Mountain Crayfish, Cambarus eeseeohensis (NCSR) habitats are known in the area. This species is
endemic to Burke and Avery Counties above Linville Falls.
Please be advised that we recommend state-of-the-art natural stream channel and wetland design and construction
methodologies. Only native and non-invasive plants should be used. Streambanks should be planted with
autochthonous (native) plants like silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, mountain pepperbush, paw paw, red
maple, silky willow, tag alder, black willow, sycamore, river birch, or other native woody species. Any non-native
and invasive plants should be controlled and eradicated.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the early planning for this project. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 336-769-9453.
Sincerely,
Ron Linville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]